Systems and methods for software support

ABSTRACT

This invention relates to methods and a system for supporting software. In one embodiment, a method for providing an updated version of a software program includes receiving an indication of a fault in a software program, distributing the faulty software program to a distributed community of programmers, receiving updated versions of the faulty software program from a subset of the distributed community of programmers, and determining a preferred updated software program from the received updated versions of the software program. In another embodiment, a system for providing an updated version of a software program includes a communication server for communicating faulty software programs and updates of the programs to and from the distributed community of programmers, a component storage module for storing the faulty software program, and a software testing module for determining a preferred updated version of the faulty software program.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/408,402, filed Apr. 7, 2003, which claims priority to U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/370,937, filed Apr. 8, 2002, and a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/035,783, filed Jan. 14, 2005, which claims priority to U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/536,760, filed Jan. 15, 2004.

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to computer-based methods and systems for developing and distributing software and, more particularly, to methods and systems for facilitating the distributed development of software.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In the United States and elsewhere, computers have become part of people's everyday lives, both in the workplace and in personal endeavors. This is because a general-purpose computer can be programmed to run a variety of software programs each providing different processing and networking functions. Computer programmers develop computer code, and in many cases are also responsible for supporting computer code once it is released into a production and/or commercial environment. Some companies hire large numbers of computer programmers and support technicians to develop and support released code on the company's behalf.

One approach is to hire large numbers of programmers and develop and support software “in house.” While this affords significant control over the programming staff, finding, hiring, and maintaining such a staff can be cost prohibitive. Furthermore, as individual programmers leave the company, much of the technical and industrial knowledge is also lost. Alternatively, many companies “outsource” their software programming and support activities through consulting firms, third parties, or contract employees. This approach relieves the company of the burdens of managing individual employees, however the quality and consistency of the work may be suspect, and the challenges of integrating work from numerous outside vendors can be significant.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Organizations that develop and deploy software need to provide high-quality support for production software while being assured that any changes to the code are implemented using appropriate quality measures. Techniques that have been suggested to improve software development and simplify ongoing support are code re-use and component-based design. But even if organizations adopt such techniques, they still need to provide timely and quality support to users of the software in an affordable manner.

In general, the invention relates to providing infrastructure, process controls, and manpower to support previously-released software using a repeatable, structured model in order to transform software support from an ad-hoc, low-value-add exercise into a streamlined, predictable manufacturing operation. Generally speaking, this goal can be achieved using a competition model whereby a number of distributed, unrelated, and motivated developers each submit code to fix malfunctioning software programs, from which the eventual new, functional software program is selected.

This approach can be applied in a variety of scenarios, even in cases where third-parties or other software development firms developed the software, but a company wishes to obtain support for the program elsewhere. For example, a consulting firm or an offshore programming shop may have been engaged to develop the software. In another example, the software may have been developed in-house, but the company wants to assist its development staff with the task of providing ongoing support for the program. In some cases, a multi-step software development manufacturing process, such as those described in currently pending, commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/408,402 entitled “Method and System for Software Development” and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/035,783 entitled “Systems and Methods for Software Development” may be used to develop the software or a change in environment or other software. Even using such methods, however, the possibility exists that a programming error will cause the developed program to fail under one or more conditions.

In one aspect, an indication of a fault (used here to refer to an error, malfunction, bug and the like, as well as behavior that operates according to the specification or documentation but is not appropriate, acceptable or optimal for actual end-user activity) in a software program is received, and a description of the faulty behavior, and the faulty program (or directions for obtaining a copy of the faulty program) is communicated to a distributed community of programmers. In response, updated versions of the software program are received from each of a subset of the programmers. One of the received modified versions is determined to be the preferred updated software program.

Various embodiments can include one or more of the following features. The faulty software program can originate from a production environment into which the program was previously deployed. The software program can be the result of a coding competition such as an on-line contest, where, for example, the programmers skill ratings can be derived from their performances in the coding competition. As further examples, the software program can be a software component, a software application, a combination of components, or a software module. In some cases, one or more test cases are received that cause the faulty software program to fail.

A copy of the faulty software program and/or a description of the fault can be received, prior to, along with, or after receiving the indication of a fault in the software program, and the faulty program may be analyzed to determine the cause of the fault. In some embodiments, the description of the fault is distributed with the faulty program. A severity level can accompany the indication of fault and/or the distribution of the faulty program. In some cases a software specification and/or design document that was used to develop the faulty software program is also distributed. In some cases, one or more test cases are provided that the software program passes.

The distributed community of programmers can include (or in some cases be limited to) programmers who previously participated in an online programming competition, and in some embodiments those programmers who have achieved a rating above a predetermined minimum rating. The distributed community of programmers can include a programmer who previously designed and/or developed the faulty software program. A time limit may be imposed on the submission of updated versions of the software program. The determination of which submitted updated software program is identified as the preferred updated software program may be based on the extent to which the submitted programs address the indicated fault and/or the order in which the submissions were received. A list of parties using the faulty software program may be compiled, and in addition the preferred updated software program may be distributed to one or more of the identified parties.

The method can further include rewarding the programmer that found the fault and/or submitted the preferred updated software program with, for example, monetary rewards, prizes, and/or increased ratings. Submissions of updated versions of the faulty software program may be rejected after some predefined period of time, upon receiving a predefined number of submissions, or upon selecting a preferred updated software program.

In general, another aspect of the invention relates to systems for implementing the methods just described. For example, a system for providing updated versions of software programs includes a communications module for receiving an indication of a fault in a software program, distributing the faulty software program to a distributed community of programmers, and in response to the distribution, receiving from each of a subset of the programmers an updated version of the faulty software program and one or more test cases for testing the received program. The system also includes a component storage module for storing previously distributed versions of the faulty software program and a testing module for determining a preferred updated version of the faulty software program, using, for example, test cases submitted with the updated versions of the software program.

In one embodiment of this aspect of the invention, the system further includes a rating engine for rating the skills of the members of the distributed community of programmers in response to the received updated versions of the faulty software program. The system can, in some embodiments, further include a reviewing module to allow members of the distributed community to review updated versions of the faulty software program submitted by other members of the community. A repository may be used to store the received updated versions, and in some cases a version control module may be included to maintain multiple versions of the software program, one of which may be the preferred version of the updated software program.

Other aspects and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following drawings, detailed description, and claims, all of which illustrate the principles of the invention, by way of example only.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the drawings, like reference characters generally refer to the same parts throughout the different views. Also, the drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead generally being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a distributed software development system having a server according to the invention.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a software development domain according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart depicting steps performed in developing a software program according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 a is a flow chart depicting an overview of the operation of an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 b is a flow charge depicting an overview of the operation of another embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram depicting a software testing environment created with multiple submissions of test cases according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6 is a more detailed diagram of an embodiment of a testing environment such as that shown in FIG. 5.

FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a server such as that of FIG. 1 to facilitate the development and/or testing of software programs.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram depicting a software versioning environment according to one embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Referring to FIG. 1, in one embodiment, a distributed software development system 101 includes at least one server 104, and at least one client 108, 108′, 108″, generally 108. As shown, the distributed software development system includes three clients 108, 108′, 108″, but this is only for exemplary purposes, and it is intended that there can be any number of clients 108. The client 108 is preferably implemented as software running on a personal computer (e.g., a PC with an INTEL processor or an APPLE MACINTOSH) capable of running such operating systems as the MICROSOFT WINDOWS family of operating systems from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., the MACINTOSH operating system from Apple Computer of Cupertino, Calif., and various varieties of Unix, such as SUN SOLARIS from SUN MICROSYSTEMS, and GNU/Linux from RED HAT, INC. of Durham, N.C. (and others). The client 108 could also be implemented on such hardware as a smart or dumb terminal, network computer, wireless device, wireless telephone, information appliance, workstation, minicomputer, mainframe computer, or other computing device, that is operated as a general purpose computer, or a special purpose hardware device used solely for serving as a client 108 in the distributed software development system.

Generally, in some embodiments, clients 108 can be operated and used by software developers to participate in various software development activities. Examples of software development activities include, but are not limited to software development projects, software design projects, testing software programs, creating and/or editing documentation, participating in programming contests, as well as others. Clients 108 can also be operated by entities who have requested that the software developers develop software (e.g., customers). The customers may use the clients 108 to review software developed by the software developers, post specifications for the development of software programs, test software modules, view information about the developers, as well as other activities described herein. The clients 108 may also be operated by a facilitator, acting as an intermediary between the customers and the software developers.

In various embodiments, the client computer 108 includes a web browser 116, client software 120, or both. The web browser 116 allows the client 108 to request a web page or other downloadable program, applet, or document (e.g., from the server 104) with a web page request. One example of a web page is a data file that includes computer executable or interpretable information, graphics, sound, text, and/or video, that can be displayed, executed, played, processed, streamed, and/or stored and that can contain links, or pointers, to other web pages. In one embodiment, a user of the client 108 manually requests a web page from the server 104. Alternatively, the client 108 automatically makes requests with the web browser 116. Examples of commercially available web browser software 116 are INTERNET EXPLORER, offered by Microsoft Corporation, NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR, offered by AOL/Time Warner, or FIREFOX offered the Mozilla Foundation.

In some embodiments, the client 108 also includes client software 120. The client software 120 provides functionality to the client 108 that allows a software developer to participate, supervise, facilitate, or observe software development activities described above. The client software 120 may be implemented in various forms, for example, it may be in the form of a Java applet that is downloaded to the client 108 and runs in conjunction with the web browser 116, or the client software 120 may be in the form of a standalone application, implemented in a multi-platform language such as Java or in native processor executable code. In one embodiment, if executing on the client 108, the client software 120 opens a network connection to the server 104 over the communications network 112 and communicates via that connection to the server 104. The client software 120 and the web browser 116 may be part of a single client-server interface 124; for example, the client software can be implemented as a “plug-in” to the web browser 116.

A communications network 112 connects the client 108 with the server 104. The communication may take place via any media such as standard telephone lines, LAN or WAN links (e.g., T1, T3, 56 kb, X.25), broadband connections (ISDN, Frame Relay, ATM), wireless links (802.11, bluetooth, etc.), and so on. Preferably, the network 112 can carry TCP/IP protocol communications, and HTTP/HTTPS requests made by the web browser 116 and the connection between the client software 120 and the server 104 can be communicated over such TCP/IP networks. The type of network is not a limitation, however, and any suitable network may be used. Non-limiting examples of networks that can serve as or be part of the communications network 112 include a wireless or wired ethernet-based intranet, a local or wide-area network (LAN or WAN), and/or the global communications network known as the Internet, which may accommodate many different communications media and protocols.

The servers 104 interact with clients 108. The server 104 is preferably implemented on one or more server class computers that have sufficient memory, data storage, and processing power and that run a server class operating system (e.g., SUN Solaris, GNU/Linux, and the MICROSOFT WINDOWS family of operating systems). Other types of system hardware and software than that described herein may also be used, depending on the capacity of the device and the number of users and the size of the user base. For example, the server 104 may be or may be part of a logical group of one or more servers such as a server farm or server network. As another example, there could be multiple servers 104 that may be associated or connected with each other, or multiple servers could operate independently, but with shared data. In a further embodiment and as is typical in large-scale systems, application software could be implemented in components, with different components running on different server computers, on the same server, or some combination.

In some embodiments, the server 104 also can include a contest server, such as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,569,012 and 6,761,631, entitled “Systems and Methods for Coding Competitions” and “Apparatus and System for Facilitating Online Coding Competitions” respectively, both by Lydon et al, and incorporated by reference in their entirety herein.

In one embodiment, the server 104 and clients 108 enable the distributed software development of a software program by one or more developers, which developers may or may not be associated with the entity requesting the development of the software program. The software program can be any sort of instructions for a machine, including, for example, without limitation, a component, a class, a library, an application, an applet, a script, a logic table, a data block, or any combination or collection of one or more of any one or more of these.

In one embodiment, the software program is a software component. Generally, a software component is a functional software module that may be a reusable building block of an application. A component can have any function or functionality. Just as a few examples, software components may include, but are not limited to, such components as graphical user interface tools, a small interest calculator, an interface to a database manager, calculations for actuarial tables, a DNA search function, an interface to a manufacturing numerical control machine for the purpose of machining manufactured parts, a public/private key encryption algorithm, and functions for login and communication with a host application (e.g., insurance adjustment and point of sale (POS) product tracking). In some embodiments, components communicate with each other for needed services (e.g., over the communications network 112). A specific example of a component is a JavaBean, which is a component written in the Java programming language. A component can also be written in any other language, including without limitation Visual Basic, C++, Java, and C^(#).

In one embodiment, the software program is an application. The application may be comprised of one or more software components. In one embodiment, the software application is comprised of software components previously developed using the methods described herein. In some embodiments, the application comprises entirely new software programs. In some embodiments, the application comprises a combination of new software programs and previously developed software programs.

Referring to FIG. 2, a software development domain 204 can be used to provide an entity 208 with high-quality software. One or more developers can be identified and/or selected by various methods from a distributed community of programmers 212, and subsequently used to develop software components. For example, the developers can be employees of, consultants to, or members of an organization, enterprise, or a community fostering collaborative computer programming and distributed software development, and in some cases the developers may have no other formal or informal relationship to each other. In some embodiments, one or more of the developers can act as a product manager who is responsible for organizing and coordinating the efforts of other developers. The product manager may also specify items such as, without limitation, the cost of the project, the project schedule, and the project risks. In one embodiment, the product manager creates a project plan for the project, which may include, without limitation, an estimated project cost and schedule, and a requirements document describing, for example, the scope and risks of the project.

In some embodiments, the developers may include architects, designers, programmers, quality assurance engineers, as well as other software development roles as described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/408,402, entitled “Method and Systems for Software Development” by Hughes, and incorporated by reference in its entirety herein.

In one embodiment, the software development domain 204 includes a communication server 216, one or more structured development methodologies 220, software development software 224, and a review board 228. The communication server provides a conduit through which the external entity 208, the community of programmers 212, and the review board 228 can interact, for example, to provide documentation, submit software, elicit and offer feedback, review submitted software, and potentially rate submitted software, either in design or functional form. In some embodiments, the communication server is or operates as part of the server 104 as described above, whereas in other cases the communication server may be a separate server, which may be operated by and/or outsourced to an application service provider (ASP), internet service provider (ISP), or other third-party.

The structured development methodology 220 provides a framework for the development of software programs. The methodology 220 specifies a common vocabulary, a fixed set of deliverables, development phases or steps, inputs and outputs for one or more of the steps, as well as other aspects of the development process. For example, the methodology 220 bifurcates the development process into an architecture and design phase and a development and testing phase. Furthermore, in this particular non-limiting example, the outputs of the architecture and design phase, such as class diagrams, test cases, technical specifications, and other design documents, are submitted, reviewed, and finalized prior to initiating any development work. Once a set of design documents are selected and approved, the design documents are used as input into the development phase. During the development and testing phase, the developer(s) create source code, scripts, documentation, and other deliverables based on the design documents. By assuring the high-quality of the design documents prior to beginning development, the developers are afforded a complete and accurate representation of what it is they are being asked to develop. Furthermore, by using a structured methodology, the participants, (e.g., developers 212, the entity 208) can communicate effectively, and the outputs of each process step are known and can be verified. By providing a common definition, and a known set of inputs, such as use cases, and a known set of outputs such as expected results, and facilitating community-based development, the developers can interact with each other effectively and efficiently, thus reducing the cost and time necessary to produce quality software.

The software development software 224 provides an operational mechanism for implementing the methodology 220, and a software development environment in which the developers can do one or more of develop, test, submit, and verify software designs and software programs. In some embodiments, as shown, components of the software 224 may reside on the server 104, whereas some components may be included in client software residing on a client, e.g., as described above. The software development software 224 optionally can include one or more modules such as a development library, from which developers can access previously developed components and documentation templates; a documentation feature that provides information about programming terms, syntax, and functions; a compiler that also allows a developer to identify and correct programming errors; and even version control and code management functions.

FIG. 3 provides a summary illustration of one embodiment of a method for developing software, for example, using the software development domain 204 described above. The communication server 216 receives a specification (STEP 304) describing the desired functions of a software program, which is then distributed to the distributed community of programmers 212 (STEP 308). One or more of the programmers in the community 212 creates a design detailing the technical aspects of the program based on the functionality described in the specification, and once completed, the design(s) are received at the server 104 (STEP 312). The submitted design(s) are then subject to a design review process (STEP 316) whereby one or more reviewers (skilled, experienced and/or highly rated experts in the field of software development, for example) compare the design(s) to the specification, and evaluate the submissions on their implementation of the specified functionality and compliance with the structured development methodology 220. A design that is the “best” of the submissions may be selected in response to the evaluations (STEP 320), and if there is at least one submission of sufficient quality, the selected design may be made available to the distributed community of programmers 212 (STEP 324). Each of a number of programmers (or, in some cases, each of teams of programmers) submits a software program that they believe conforms to the design and the requirements of the structured development methodology 220. The software programs are received at the server 104 (STEP 328) and the programs are subjected to a software review process (STEP 332) to determine which submitted program(s) best conform to the distributed design and the structured development methodology 220. Once reviewed, one (or in some cases more than one, or none if none are of sufficient quality) program is identified as a “winning” submission (STEP 336).

FIG. 4 a provides one possible implementation of the general method described above. In some such embodiments, the development process is monitored and managed by a facilitator 400. The facilitator 400 can be any individual, group, or entity capable of performing the functions described here. In some cases, the facilitator 400 can be selected from the distributed community of developers 208 based on, for example, achieving exemplary scores on previously submitted software designs and/or programs, or achieving a high ranking in a software programming contest. In other cases, the facilitator 400 can be appointed or supplied by the entity (e.g., entity 208) requesting the development of the software program, and thus oversee the design and development process for further assurance that the end product will comport with the specifications.

Initially, the facilitator 400 receives input from an entity (not shown) wishing to have a software program, application, component, or other asset developed on their behalf. The entity can be a company looking to have one or more computer programs designed and/or developed for internal use, or as portions of larger applications that they intend to sell commercially. In some cases, the entity provides a detailed specification, and in other cases only a list of functional requirements may be provided. The facilitator receives either the requirements (STEP 406), the specification (STEP 408), or in some cases both from the external entity. If, however, no specification is provided, or if the specification needs revisions to conform to the methodology, the facilitator can develop a specification in accordance with the requirements (STEP 410). In some cases, one or more members of the development community 407 (e.g., development community 212 in FIG. 2) may be asked to develop the specification, and in some cases multiple specifications may be submitted, with one of the submissions selected as the final specification to be used for guiding the design and development efforts.

In one embodiment, the specification defines the business plan and a stable hardware and/or software platform, or other architectural constraints. For example, the specification can define the network devices, servers, and general infrastructure to support the development and production of the project and product. The specification can also identify a language or tools that the component must be programmed in or with, a functional overview of the software component, boundary conditions, efficiency requirements, computer platform/environment requirements, interface requirements, performance criteria, test-case requirements, and/or documentation requirements of the component. In some embodiments, the specification can include an amount of money that will be paid to the designer who submits the best design and/or program that complies with the specification.

In some cases, the specification is assigned a difficulty level, or some similar indication of how difficult the facilitator, entity, or other evaluator of the specification, believes it will be to produce a comprehensive design according to the specification. The difficulty level may, in some cases, also be based on the effort believed to be necessary to complete the task, and the time allotted to complete the task. The difficulty level may be expressed in any suitable manner, for example as a numerical measure (e.g., a scale of 1 to 10), a letter grade, or a descriptive such as easy, medium, or hard. For example, a specification for the design of a complex gene-sequencing algorithm may have a difficulty level of 9 on a scale of 1 to 10, whereas a simple component that performs a search for specific text in a file may be assigned a difficulty level of 2. If there are additional practical constraints, for example if the search component is needed in two days, the difficulty level optionally may be increased due to the tight time constraints. In some embodiments, an award to the designer (e.g., money, skill rating, etc.) that submits the selected design may be produced or adjusted based in part on the difficulty level associated with the specification.

Once the specification is received (or developed), the facilitator 400 (or in some cases a project manager, review board member, or some combination thereof) reviews the specification to determine if it meets the requirements for a complete specification according to the development methodology 220. The methodology can include best-practice activities, templates, guidelines, and standards that assist software architects, programmers, and developers in producing quality code in a consistent and efficient manner. The use of such a methodology reduces the need to rethink and recreate programming documentation and constructs, thus reducing project duration, cost, and increasing quality and component reusability.

Once complete, the specification is distributed via the communications server 212 to one or more developers 404, 404′, 404″ (generally, 404), who may be members, for example, of a distributed community of programmers such as the community 212 shown in FIG. 2. In one non-limiting example, the developers 404 are unrelated to each other. For example, the developers may have no common employer, may be geographically dispersed throughout the world, and in some cases have not previously interacted with each other. However, as members of the community 212, the developers 404 may have participated in one or more competitions, and/or have had previously submitted software artifacts subject to reviews. This approach allows an entity 208 to gain access to a large pool of qualified software developers.

The communication can occur over a communications network such as the network 112 (FIG. 1), such as via an email, instant message, text message, a posting on a web page accessible by the web browser 116, through a news group, facsimile, or any other suitable communication. In some embodiments, the communication of the specification can be accompanied by an indication of a prize, payment, or other recognition that is available to the designer(s) that submit selected software design(s). In some cases, the amount and/or type of payment may change over time, or as the number of participants increases or decreases, or both. In some cases multiple designers may be rewarded with different amounts, for example a larger reward for the best design, and a smaller reward for second place. The number of designers receiving an award can be based on, for example, the number of designers participating in the design project, or other similar attributes.

The recipients of the specification can be selected by various means. In some embodiments, members of the community may have expressed interest in participating in a development project, whereas in some cases the individuals are selected based on previous performances in coding competitions, prior development projects, or other methods of measuring the programming skill of a software developer. For example, the members of the distributed community of programmers may be programmers who have previously participated in an on-line programming competition. In such a case, the programming skills of the participants may have been rated according to their performance, either individually, as a team, or in relation to other programmers, and the ratings may be used to determine which programmers are eligible to receive notification of a new specification or respond to a notification.

In one embodiment, the facilitator 400 moderates a collaborative forum among the various participants (the external entity 208, the developers 404, etc.) to determine, discuss, or collaborate on design features. The collaborative forum can consist of developers, customers, prospective customers, or others interested in the development of certain software. In one embodiment, the collaboration forum is an online forum where participants can post ideas, questions, suggestions, or other information. In some embodiments, only a subset of the forum members can post suggestions to the forum.

Upon receipt of the specification, one or more developers 404 each develop software designs (STEPS 412, 412′ and 412″) in accordance with the specification. The development of the software design can be done using any suitable development system, for example, the software development software 224 provided via the communication server 216, a development environment provided by the developer 404, or some combination thereof. Once a developer 404 is satisfied that her design meets the specified requirements, and follows the structured development methodology 220, she submits her design e.g., via the communications server 216, facsimile, email, mail, or other similar methods.

To determine which design will be used as the design for the software program, a design review process (STEP 414) is used. This design review can take place in any number of ways. In some cases, the facilitator 400 can delegate the review process to one or more members of the distributed community of programmers, or an appointee of the entity. The design review process, in some embodiments, includes one or more developers 404 acting as a design review board to review design submissions from software designers. The design review board preferably has a small number of (e.g., less than ten) members, for example, three members, but can be any number. Generally, the review board is formed for only one or a small number of related projects, for example three projects. Review boards, in some embodiments, could be formed for an extended time, but changes in staffing also can help maintain quality.

Preferably, one member of the design review board members is selected as the primary review board member by the facilitator 400 and/or the project manager, the members of the review board, and/or the external entity requesting the software program. In some cases, the facilitator 400 or a representative of the facilitator 400 acts as the primary review board member. The primary review board member is responsible for coordination and management of the activities of the board.

In one embodiment, submissions for software designs are judged by the design review board. In some embodiments, the primary review board member screens the design submissions before they are reviewed by the other members of the design review board, to allow the rest of the review board to judge only the best of the submissions. In some embodiments, the screening process includes scoring the submissions based on the degree to which they meet formal requirements outlined in the specification (e.g., format and elements submitted). In some embodiments, scores are documented using a scorecard, which can be a document, spreadsheet, online form, database, or other electronic document. The design review board may also, in some cases, verify the anonymity of the developers 404 such that their identities cannot be discerned from their submissions.

A screening review can determine whether the required elements of the design are included (e.g., class, use-case, and sequence diagrams, component specification, required algorithms, class stubs, and functional tests). The screening review can also determine that these elements appear complete. With regard to the class diagram, for example, and in particular the class definition, the screening review can determine any or all of that: (1) the class definition provides a descriptive overview of the class usage, (2) sub-packages have been created to separate functionality, (3) class scope matches class usage, (4) there is proper and effective use of programming techniques such as inheritance and abstraction, (5) interfaces are used properly, (6) suitable constructors are defined for the component, and that (7) class modifiers such as final and static, are appropriately used. The screening review can also determine, for example, with regard to variable definitions, that: (1) variable scope is correctly defined, (2) type assignments are defined appropriately for balance between efficiency and flexibility, and (3) that all variables are defined with an initial value. Further, with regard to method definitions, for example, the screening review can determine that: (1) scope is correctly defined, (2) exceptions are handled and used appropriately, (3) modifiers are properly used, (4) return types are used, (5) method arguments are properly defined, and (6) that the application programming interface (API) as stated in the requirements specification is available.

The screening review can also, for example, verify that use-case diagrams exist for all public methods in the design, and that sequence diagrams exist for each use case. The screening review can also, for example, with regard to test cases, verify that functional test cases are provided for each sequence diagram, and that they appear to be appropriate for those diagrams. The designs can take a number of forms, depending on the program specified. Typically, the specifications will include the requirements for the design. In one embodiment, the design requirements include class diagrams, which can be developed in the Unified Modeling Language (UML), for example using the Poseideon Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tool, available from Gentleware AG of Hamburg, Germany. The design requirements also include use-case diagrams and sequence diagrams. The design requirements also include a written component design specification describing the design, a list of required algorithms, and class stubs for the classes in the design. The design requirements also include functional tests that can be used to test the program. In one such embodiment, the functional tests are tests compatible with the JUnit testing infrastructure. JUnit is open source software for testing Java software, which is available from www.sourceforge.net.

In one embodiment, the primary review board member informs the design review board that one or more submissions have passed the initial screening process (STEP 416), and the design review board then evaluates the design submissions in greater detail. In some embodiments, the design review board reviews the submissions based on requirements documented in the specification. In some embodiments, the design review board scores the submissions (STEP 418). In some embodiments, the scores are documented using a scorecard, which can be any form, including a document, spreadsheet, online form, database, or other electronic document.

In some embodiments, the scores and reviews from the primary review board member and the other members of the design review board are aggregated into a final review and score. In some embodiments, the aggregation can comprise compiling information contained in one or more documents. Such aggregation can be performed by the primary review board member, the other members of the design review board, or in one exemplary embodiment, the aggregation is performed using a computer-based system which resides on the server 104 (FIG. 1). In some embodiments, the facilitator 400 or the primary review board member resolves discrepancies or disagreements among the members of the design review board.

In one embodiment, the design with the highest combined score is selected as the winning design that will be used for implementation (STEP 420). A prize, payment and/or recognition is given to the designer. In one embodiment, a portion of the payment to the designer is withheld until the end of the development review. For example, the designer may receive 75% of the payment at the end of the design review, and 25% is paid after the code review. There can also be prizes, payments, and/or recognition for the other submitted designs. For example, the designers that submit the second and third best designs may also receive payment, which in some cases may be less than that of the winning designer. Payments may also be made for creative use of technology, submitting a unique test case, or other such submissions. In some embodiments, the software developers can contest the score assigned to their design, program, or other submissions.

In some cases, the posted design is assigned a difficulty level, or some similar indication of how difficult the external entity, facilitator 400 or some evaluator of the design, believes it will be to produce a software program or component that meets the requirements of the selected design. Like the difficulty levels assigned to the specification, the difficulty level assigned to a design may, in some cases, also factor in the effort believed to be necessary to complete the task, and the time allotted to complete the task. In some embodiments, the recognition awarded to the designer (e.g., money, skill rating, etc.) that submits the selected design may be adjusted based in part on the difficulty level associated with the specification.

In some embodiments, in addition to reviewing the submissions, the design review board can identify useful modifications to the design that should be included into the design prior to entering the development phase. The primary review board member documents the additional requirements, and communicates this information to the designer 404 who submitted the design. In one embodiment, the primary review board member aggregates the comments from the review board. The developer 404 can update the design and resubmit it for review by the design review board. This process can repeat until the primary review board member believes the design has met all the necessary requirements.

Once the design review board validates that a design has sufficiently addressed the requirements of the specification, the primary review board member notifies the facilitator 400, product manager, or external entity that such a design has passed the design review process. The design can then be posted and/or distributed (STEP 422) to the community of developers 407 to solicit submissions for software programs that conform to the design. For example, the facilitator 400 can make the design available on a web site and/or a mailing list for implementation, and request components according to the design.

In one alternative embodiment, and as an example of the flexibility of the system, the entity develops the software design and provides the design to the facilitator 400 as input directly into the development process. The facilitator 400 receives the design (STEP 424) and optionally initiates a review process as described above to confirm that the design meets the standards of the structured development methodology 220. Using this approach, an entity wishing to maintain control of the design phase of the software development process (e.g., architecture, platform, coding standards, etc.) can utilize internal or other resources such as business and systems analysts to develop a design that complies with their standards, and then utilize a distributed community of developers 212 to develop the end product. Generally, this alternative maintains the design aspects of the software development process in-house, and “outsources” the manufacturing aspects of the development process such that the development domain 204 can use repeatable, structured development methods and the community of developers 212 to develop the software programs. Similarly, the entity 208 may only require the services of the development domain 204 to develop a software design, and subsequently use other resources such as in house programmers or off shore developers to develop the code.

The flexibility provided by maintaining multiple entry and exit points into and out of the development process allows external entities to decide, on a case by case or phase by phase basis whether to utilize the development domain 204 from start to finish, (i.e., specification through testing and support) or only use the domain 204 for specific phases of the process (i.e., development of code, development of a specification, development of a software design, testing, support, etc.).

Referring still to FIG. 4 a, the selected and approved design is posted or provided to members of the distributed community of programmers 212. As above, with the specification, the design may be sent to the entire community or only selected members of the community. In versions where the design is sent to selected members, the selection process can be based on any or a combination of suitable criteria, for example, without limitation, past performances in programming competitions, the quality of previously submitted software programs, involvement in the development of the design, or by specific request of the facilitator 400, entity 208, the designer that submitted the winning design, other designers, or other members of the community 212. In some embodiments, the communication of the design can be accompanied by an indication of a prize, payment, or other recognition that is available to the developer that submits a selected software program, and/or runners up. In some cases, the amount and/or type of payment may change over time, or as the number of participants increases or decreases.

Each developer 404 develops software code (STEPS 426, 426′, and 426″) meeting the requirements of the selected design, and when completed, submits the code for example to the facilitator 400 or the server. As described above, the developers 404 may use a variety of coding techniques, languages, and development environments to develop the software, so long as the code meets, for example, the functional and architectural aspects dictated by the design and the quality and syntactical standards outlined by the structured development methodology 220. In some embodiments, the developers 404 may use the software development software 224 provided via the communication server 216 to assist with the development tasks. Because the development software 224 and development methodology 220 are both maintained within the development domain 204, many of the coding and quality control requirements of the methodology 220 can be built into the software 224, further assisting the developers 404 to develop quality code in an efficient manner.

To determine which software program will ultimately be selected as the program to be delivered to the entity 208, a code review process (STEP 428) is used, which can take place in any suitable manner. The code review process, in some embodiments, includes one or more developers 404 acting as a code review board to review submitted software programs from software developers. The code review board preferably has a small number of members (e.g., less than ten), for example, three members, but can be any number. Generally, the code review board is formed for only one or a small number of related projects, for example three projects, and then disbanded to allow the members to participate in additional design review boards, code review boards, or participate as designers and/or developers themselves. Review boards, in some embodiments, could be formed for an extended time, but changes in staffing also can help maintain quality.

Preferably, one member of the code review board members is selected as the primary code reviewer by the facilitator 404 and/or the project manager, the members of the review board, and/or the external entity requesting the software program. In some cases, the facilitator 400 or a representative of the facilitator 400 acts as the primary code board member. The primary code review board member is responsible for coordination and management of the activities of the board.

In one embodiment, submissions of software programs are judged by the code review board. In some embodiments, the primary code review board member screens the code submissions before they are reviewed by the other members of the code review board, to allow the rest of the code board to judge only the best of the submissions, for example, those that meet minimal requirements. In some embodiments, the screening process includes scoring the submissions based on the degree to which they meet formal requirements outlined in the selected design (e.g., format and elements submitted). In some embodiments, scores are documented using a scorecard, which can be a document, spreadsheet, online form, database, or other electronic document.

In one embodiment, for example, with regard to software code, the code review board member or members score the code based on the extent to which: (1) the submitted code addresses the functionality as detailed in component design documents; (2) the submitted code correctly uses all required technologies (e.g., language, required components, etc.) and packages; (3) the submitted code properly implements required algorithms; and/or (4) the submitted code has correctly implemented (and not modified) the public application programming interface (API) as defined in the design, with no additional public classes, methods, or variables.

With regard to the source code, for example, the screening review can determine any or all of that: (1) all public methods are clearly commented; (2) required tags such as “@author,” “@param,” “@return,” “@throws,” and “@version” are included; (3) the copyright tag is populated; (4) the source code follows standard coding conventions for the Java language such as those published by Sun Microsystems; (5) a 4 space indentation is used in lieu of a tab indentation; and (6) all class, method and variable definitions found in the class diagram are accurately represented in the source code. The code review can also, for example, verify that unit test cases exist for all public methods in the design, and each unit test is properly identified by a testing program.

With regard to class definitions, for example, the reviewer can evaluate the code based on the extent to which classes are implemented as defined in design documents (including, for example, modifiers, types, and naming conventions), and whether defined classes are implemented. With regard to variable definitions and method definitions, for example, the reviewer can determine the extent to which all variables and methods are implemented as defined in the design documents (including, for example, modifiers, types, and naming conventions). With regard to relationships, for example, the reviewer can determine the extent to which the implementation properly maps class relationships.

The reviewer can further evaluate code based on a code inspection. For example, the reviewer can determine the extent to which the object types defined in the code are the best choices for the intended usage—for example whether a Vector type should have been used instead of an Array type. The reviewer can determine the extent to which there are any needless loops, or careless object instantiation or variable assignment.

The reviewer can also inspect the test cases. With regard to test cases, for example, the reviewer can determine the extent to which (1) the unit test cases thoroughly test all methods and constructors; (2) the unit test cases properly make use of setup and teardown methods to configure the test environment; (3) files used in unit test cases exist in the designated directory; and/or (4) unit test cases do not leave temporary files on the file system after testing is complete.

The reviewer can run tests on the code using test cases, for example test cases developed by the developer 404, other developers, the reviewers, the facilitator 400, the entity 208, as well as others. The reviewer can even further score the code by conducting accuracy, failure, and stress tests. Accuracy tests test the accuracy of the resulting output when provided valid input. Accuracy tests can also validate configuration data. Failure tests test for correct failure behavior when the component is provided with invalid input, such as bad data and incorrect usage. Stress tests test the component capacity for high-volume operation, buy testing such characteristics as performance and throughput. The tests that fail are included in the evaluation of the component, for example as a score reduction. The reviewer can then assign an overall score to the component based on this evaluation.

In one embodiment, the primary code review board member informs the code review board that one or more submissions have passed the initial screening step (STEP 430), and the code review board can then evaluate the program submissions in greater detail. In some embodiments, the code review board can review the submissions based on design requirements documented in the selected design. The code review board can then score the submissions (STEP 432) based on the results of the evaluations. In some embodiments, the scores are documented using a scorecard, which can be any suitable means, such as a document, spreadsheet, online form, database, or other electronic document.

In some embodiments, the scores and reviews from the primary code board member and the other members of the code review board are aggregated into a final review and score. In some embodiments, aggregation can comprise compiling information contained in one or more documents. Such aggregation can be performed by the facilitator 400, the primary code board member, the other members of the code review board or in one exemplary embodiment, the aggregation is performed using a computer-based system which resides on the server 104 (FIG. 1). In some embodiments, the facilitator 400 or the primary review board member resolves discrepancies or disagreements among the members of the code review board.

In one embodiment, the software program with the highest combined score is selected as the winning program (STEP 434) that will be delivered to the external entity 208 as a finished product (STEP 436). In some embodiments, a prize, payment and/or recognition is given to the software developer that submitted the winning program. There can also be prizes, payments, and/or recognition for the other submitted programs. For example, the programmers that submit the second and third best programs may also receive payment, which in some cases may be less than that of the winning programmer. Payments may also be made for creative use of technology, submitting a unique test case, or other such submissions. In some embodiments, the software developers can contest the score assigned to their programs, test cases, or other submissions.

In some embodiments, in addition to reviewing the submissions, the code review board can identify useful modifications to the program that should be included into a selected software program prior to distribution. The primary code review board member documents the additional requirements, and communicates this information to the developer 404 who submitted the code. In one embodiment, the primary code review board member aggregates the comments from the review board. The developer 404 can update the program and resubmit it for review by the code review board. This process can repeat until the primary code review board member believes the program has met all the necessary requirements and meets the standards specified in the structured development methodology 220.

In some embodiments, the software may be updated with enhancements, post-delivery bug fixes, additional functionality, or modified to operate in additional computing environments or platforms after it has been delivered to one or more entity 208. In such cases, the domain 204 provides for the tracking and updating (STEP 438) of previously distributed software products, as described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/408,402, entitled “Method and Systems for Software Development” by Hughes, filed on Apr. 7, 2003, and incorporated by reference in its entirety herein.

For example, in one embodiment, an entity commissions the development of a software component, and upon completion of the component, version 1 of the component is distributed to the entity 208. Subsequently, a second entity 208 requests the development of a similar component that performs the same functionality, however to meet the specific request of the second entity, some modifications are made to the component. A modification is, for example, an improvement (e.g., efficiency increase, smaller memory requirements), deletion (e.g., of an unneeded step or feature), and/or an addition (e.g., of a complimentary feature or function) to the component. Another example of a modification is the integration of the component into another component (e.g., a larger component). In response to the request for the modified component, a new version of the component (version 1.1, for example) is developed and distributed to the second entity 208. In one embodiment, a message is sent to the first entity 208 stating that an updated version of the component is available. In further embodiments, the costs for developing the newer version of the component can be shared among the recipients of the original component (version 1) who wish to receive the new version, as well as the entity that initiated the development of the new version. Additionally, in some embodiments the entity 208 that requested the development of the new version is compensated for licenses/sales of copies of the second version of the component.

Referring to FIG. 4 b, in one embodiment, the distributed community of developers 404 are engaged to provide support for software programs. Support can be provided during implementation and deployment at an external entity 208, during a testing phase at the entity 208, as well as post-deployment—i.e. when the software program is “in production.” In some cases, the software programs are developed using the systems and methods described herein, and in some cases the software programs are developed using other methods, and subsequently sent to the facilitator 400 for inclusion in a software library, component store, or other such software artifact storage and distribution system.

The software program is deployed (STEP 440) by one or more external entities 208, for example, in a production environment, a testing environment, a development environment, or other computing environment where the software program is expected to operate according to the design and development specifications previously described. Typically, the software program has already passed tests and was believed to be fully functional.

At any time, the external entity 208 (or in some cases multiple entities) identify one or more faults (STEP 442) in the software program. For example, the software program may operate without incident, but fail to produce the expected output. As another example, the software may exhibit faulty behavior infrequently, for example if the software program lacks appropriate data input checks to assure that the data being used by the software program is of the correct format (e.g., integer, text, etc.) and does not contain invalid values. In other cases, the software program may function as designed under typical operations, but due to design choices such as field definition limits, stack limits, and transaction processing mechanisms, the program may fail when encountering high-volume operations. In other cases, the software operation is not erroneous, but is not optimal, for example, if all useful information is not displayed, additional functionality would be helpful, or if the operation of the software in its intended environment is slower than anticipated or desired. In still further cases, the external entity 208 may not be aware of any faults of the program, but wishes to have the program “vetted” by the community of software developers 212 to find any previously unnoticed faults as well as determining the most appropriate fix for any faults they find.

In each case, the entity 208 compiles as much fault data as possible (STEP 444), which in some cases may be none if they are requesting the program be further tested by the community of software developers 212. The fault data may include, by way of example, error messages, input data values, output data values, memory dumps, and/or code segments. In some embodiments, the external entity 208 supplies fully functional software programs that interact with the faulty software program to allow “system testing” at an application level in addition to the “unit testing” at the program or component level described above. In some cases, no fault data may be available, and the entity merely notes a failure or faulty behavior occurred. The entity 208 then provides the fault data (STEP 446) to the facilitator 400 who will oversee the resolution of the fault.

Once the facilitator 400 receives an indication (STEP 448) that a software program is not operating as expected and available fault data associated with that failure, a confirmation step may be used to determine if the program is in fact faulty. One method of testing the program is to use the fault data supplied by the entity 208 to attempt to recreate the fault. In embodiments where additional functional software programs are supplied, the facilitator may attempt to operate an entire software application comprising numerous software programs, the faulty software program being only a subset of the application to observe how the faulty program interacts with other programs. In cases where multiple test cases were submitted during the development of the program (as described below), the test cases may be re-run with the fault data supplied by the entity 208. In situations where the software program was developed based on design and development specifications that were compiled under the supervision of the facilitator using, for example, the methods described above, those documents are used to determine if the software program meets the original design and development requirements. If the facilitator 400 determines that the software program is operating as designed, the facilitator notifies the entity as such.

In some cases, faults in other software programs may be found, and those programs are then subject to the methods described herein. In other cases, the software program may be operating as specified, but the operational requirements of the program may have changed or, in many cases, not originally considered. Changes to the software program made to address new requirements (enhancements) may be incorporated into the software program using these same or similar methods. However, in some cases, the facilitator may decide to charge a fee for enhancing a software program. The fee may be a fixed fee or a fee determined by the complexity of the enhancement and/or the time necessary to implement the enhancement. Such fees may be documented in, for example, a support services contract negotiated between the facilitator 400 and the entity 208, or in some cases determined on a “one-off” basis as faults are found.

Having determined that a fault exists (or, as described above, an enhancement is needed), the facilitator 400 posts the program (STEP 452), and in some embodiments also posts documentation regarding the program and the fault. The documentation may include, for example, fault data, and in some cases documentation describing the fault, the intended operation of the program, the design document, the development specification, and the operational environment of the program. Other information such as the date or time that any updated versions of the program are needed and any rewards (e.g., money) for submitting the selected updated version can also be included in the posting. In some cases, the posting may be available to the entire distributed community of programmers, whereas in other cases the posting may be limited to a subset of the community having, for example, a minimum skill rating, or a certain identified programming expertise. The posting may also be made available (either exclusively or in addition to other members of the community) to the individual(s) that originally designed and/or developed the program using the methods described above. The posting may be achieved, for purposes of example, by placing a copy of the software program on a web site, and FTP site, distributing the program via email, or any combination thereof.

Developers 404 are notified of (or inquire about) a faulty software program and those that are identified as qualified recipients receive the program (STEP 454) using one or more of the methods described above. In addition to receiving the faulty software program and the related documentation, test scripts, data, and other information that can be used to identify and resolve the fault, the developers also, in some cases, receive a deadline by which modifications must be submitted, and may also be informed of one or more prizes (e.g., money, a skill rating, etc.) that are available to the developer 404 that submits the preferred fix. The developers 404, using either their own programming/development environments or, in some cases, using an online development and testing environment provided by the facilitator 404, analyze and modify the faulty program (STEP 456) such that it is no longer faulty. When a developer is satisfied that their modifications address the identified faults, (as well as any they may have identified subsequent to their receiving the program) they submit their modified program (STEP 458) to the facilitator 400 for testing and analysis. The developer also may be required to submit test cases that test for the identified fault. In some embodiments, test cases from multiple developers are used against a single submission, using, for example, the methods described below.

Still referring to FIG. 4 b, the facilitator 400 receives each of the modified programs (STEP 460) and, based on one or more decision parameters, the primary review board member selects a preferred program (STEP 462) from among those submitted by the developers. The selection process can include testing the modified program to assure the previously identified fault has been addressed, testing the overall functionality of the program, and/or the speed with which the program operates. In some embodiments, a deadline is established by which the developers must submit their modifications in order to be considered for the selection process. In certain circumstances requiring exceptionally quick turnaround, the first submission that successfully addresses the fault is selected as the preferred program. Once a preferred program is selected, it is redistributed (STEP 464) to the entity 208, where it is deployed (STEP 466) for further testing and/or use in one or more production environment(s). In some embodiments, the preferred program is also distributed to other entities that have previously deployed the program, but may or may not have identified the fault, using, for example the version control and distribution systems and methods described in more detail below.

In general, developers are encouraged to develop test cases as they are coding so that they can consider the bounding and error conditions as they code. It can be beneficial to use the test cases developed by one or more, or all, of the other submitters to test each of the submitted programs to cover as many error conditions as possible.

As mentioned above, in some embodiments, the developers 404 submit one or more test cases in addition to submitting the completed software program and/or the updated software program. The purpose of the test cases is to provide sample data and expected outputs against which the program can run, and the actual output of which can be compared to the expected outputs. By creating additional test cases that test for the identified fault, the developer ensures that the fault will be noticed if accidentally reinserted into the code later. By submitting multiple test cases, many different scenarios can be tested in isolation, therefore specific processing errors or omissions can be identified. For example, a program that calculates amortization tables for loans may require input data such as an interest rate, a principal amount, a payment horizon, and a payment frequency. Each data element may need to be checked such that null sets, zeros, negative numbers, decimals, special characters, etc. are all accounted for and the appropriate error checking and messages are invoked. In addition, the mathematical calculations should be verified and extreme input values such as long payment periods, daily payments, very large or very small principal amounts, and fractional interest rates should also be verified. In some versions, one test case can be developed to check each of these cases, however in other versions, it may be beneficial to provide individual test cases for each type of error. In certain embodiments, the multiple test cases can then be incorporated into a larger test program (e.g., a script, shell, or other high level program) and run concurrently or simultaneously. Where the program was identified as a faulty software program, the suite of test cases tests the updated programs using, for example, the test data that caused the faulty program to fail, an operating environment in which the software program did not operate as expected, or other processes identified as causing the program to fail.

It should be understood that the tasks described could be reallocated. Just as one example, step 448, described above as performed by a facilitator, could likewise be performed by a developer. Similarly, evaluation of the updated code could be performed by one or more review boards or teams.

Referring to FIG. 5, in a demonstrative embodiment, developers 404, 404′ and 404″ each submit software programs 502, 502′ and 502″ respectively to the development domain 204 in response to the communicated software design and/or specification referred to above. In addition to submitting the programs, the developers 404 also submit one or more test cases 506, 506′, and 506″. For example, when DEVELOPER 1 404 submits PROGRAM 1 502, she also submits TEST CASE 1A and TEST CASE 1B, collectively 506. DEVELOPER 2 404′ and DEVELOPER 3 404″ do the same, such that after all three developers 404 have completed their submission, the development domain 204 includes a submission pool 508 comprising three submitted programs and six test cases. Even though it is likely that DEVELOPER 1 404 ran TEST CASE 1A and 1B 506 that she submitted against her PROGRAM 502, it is also possible that the test cases 506′ and 506″ submitted by DEVELOPER 2 404′ and DEVELOPER 3 404″ respectively address cases or data not contemplated by DEVELOPER 1 404. Therefore, it can be advantageous to run each test case submitted by all of the developers against each of the submitted programs in an attempt to identify all potential faults of each submitted program. In some versions, a subset of the submitted test cases may be eliminated from the submission pool 508, or not used, for example, because they are duplicative, do not test necessary features, or are incorrect. If so, a subset of the test cases in the submission pool 508 can be used to test the submitted programs. Because the programs are tested more rigorously (i.e., using a suite of test cases submitted by numerous developers) the quality of the resulting programs is likely to be greater than that of programs tested only by those that developed the selected program.

Referring to FIG. 6, the test cases in the submission pool 508 are applied to the submitted programs 502, 502′, 502″. In some cases, all of the test cases in the pool 508 are applied to every submitted program, whereas in some versions only a subset of the submitted test cases are used. In some embodiments, certain programs may be eliminated from contention by running a first test case against it, such that subsequent test cases are not necessary. In some versions, each application of test case 508 to a program results in a score 604. The scores 604 for each application of test case 508 to submitted program can then be tabulated and aggregated into a combined, or overall score for that particular program. Some test cases have a higher or lower weight than others such that the scores for a particular test case may be more indicative of the overall quality of the program, or the results are more meaningful. In other cases, the scores may be binary—i.e., a passed test receives a score of “1” and a failed test receives a score of “0.” In some embodiments the tabulation and aggregation can be automated on the server 104.

In some embodiments, developers that submit designs and/or developed code are rated based on the scores of their submissions. The ratings are calculated based on the ratings of each developer prior to the submission, the assigned difficulty level of the design or program being submitted, and the number of other developers making submissions. It should be understood that a submission could be one design, program, or other computer software asset, or in some cases a number of different assets. A skill rating is calculated for each developer based on each developer's rating prior to the submission and a constant standard rating (e.g., 1200), and a deviation is calculated for each developer based on their volatility and the standard rating.

The expected performance of each developer submitting a design or program is calculated by estimating the expected score of that developer's submission against the submissions of the other developers' submissions, and ranking the expected performances of each developer. The submission can be scored by a reviewer using any number of methods, including, without limitation, those described above.

Based on the score of the submitted software and the scores of submissions from other developers (e.g., whether for the same program or one or more other programs having a similar level of difficulty), each developer is ranked, and an actual performance metric is calculated based on their rank for the current submission and the rankings of the other developers. In some cases, the submissions from other developers used for comparison are for the same program. In some cases, the submissions from other developers are submissions that are of similar difficulty or scope.

A competition factor also can be calculated from the number of developers, each developer's rating prior to the submission of the design or program, the average rating of the developers prior the submissions, and the volatility of each developer's rating prior to submission.

Each developer can then have their performance rated, using their old rating, the competition factor, and the difference between their actual score and an expected score. This performance rating can be weighted based on the number of previous submissions received from the developer, and can be used to calculate a developer's new rating and volatility. In some cases, the impact of a developer's performance on one submission may be capped such that any one submission does not have an overly significant effect on a developer's rating. In some cases, a developer's score may be capped at a maximum, so that there is a maximum possible rating. The expected project performance of each developer is calculated by estimating the expected performance of that developer against other developers and ranking the expected performances of each participant. The submissions and participants can be scored by the facilitator 400, the entity 208, a review board member, and/or automatically using the software residing, for example, on the server 104 using any number of methods.

One such example of scoring methodology is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,569,012, entitled “Systems and Methods for Coding Competitions” by Lydon et al, at, for example, column 15 line 39 through column 16 line 52, and column 18 line 65 through column 21 line 51, and incorporated by reference in their entirety herein. The methodology is described there with reference to programming competitions, and so is applicable to rating the development of software or hardware designs, data models, applications, components, and other work products created as a result of using the methodology described above.

In one embodiment, the external entity 208 is interested in receiving the developed design or the code, as well as obtaining developers' ratings, and in some cases only the ratings. For example, the external entity 208 may ask developers to participate in the development process just so that the developers are rated, and their skills can be objectively evaluated for future projects of greater value, or to determine which developers are more skilled. The requestor could, in addition, have some interest in the developed design or code, and may have some interest in using the developed intellectual asset for its business or otherwise.

There can be a significant benefit to using personnel who are rated highly, using the process described above, as design reviewer(s) in the design review process and/or code reviewer(s) in the code review process. One of the traditional problems with conducting code reviews has been that the abilities of the reviewers were not established. Review by a poorly skilled developer can result in an inadequate review. By using the process to select as reviewers only developers with sufficient skill (as determined by the process), the process itself insures its success.

In one embodiment, this software development process is adopted by a software development group within an organization. The development performed by the group is conducted using this process. Each developer in the group has a rating, and the developers work to improve and/or maintain their ratings. Developers who have high ratings can participate in reviews (e.g., the design review process or the code review process). In one implementation, developers receive additional benefits and or compensation for achieving a high rating. Likewise, developers can receive additional benefits and/or compensation for such participation in a review process. The requesters in this example are product or program managers, charged with directing the software development.

In another implementation, an outside organization such as a consultant can use the system and methods described above to evaluate and rate the development competencies of a development group. In this way, the consultant can rate the developers not only against themselves, but against other developers affiliated with other organizations who have participated or are participating in the system. The evaluator provides the service of evaluation and reporting as described above. One benefit to this approach is that the scoring of the intellectual assets is more likely to be unbiased if the reviewers are not personally known to the developers, and comparing the skills of any one developer against a large pool of developers provides a more accurate representation of that developers skill level with respect to his or her peers.

Referring to FIG. 7, the server 104 can include a number of modules and subsystems to facilitate the communication and development of software specifications, designs and programs. The server 104 includes a communication server 704. One example of a communication server 704 is a web server that facilitates HTTP/HTTPS and other similar network communications over the network 112, as described above. The communication server 704 includes tools that facilitate communication among the distributed community of programmers 212, the external entity 208, the facilitator 400, and the members of the review board(s) (commonly referred to as “users”). Examples of the communication tools include, but are not limited to, a module enabling the real-time communication among the developers 404 (e.g., chat), news groups, on-line meetings, and document collaboration tools. The facilitator 400 and/or the external entity 208 can also use the communication server 704 to post design or specifications for distribution to the distributed community of programmers 212.

Furthermore, the server 104 also includes a software development environment 702 to facilitate the software development domain 204 and the design and development process, for example, and the subsystems and modules that support the domain 204. For example, the server 104 can include a development posting subsystem 708, a management subsystem 712, a review board subsystem 714, a testing subsystem 716, a scoring subsystem 720, a methodology database 724, and a distribution subsystem 728.

In one embodiment, the development posting subsystem 708 allows users of the system to post specifications, submit designs, post selected designs, submit software programs and test cases, and post selected software programs for distribution. The posting subsystem 708 identifies the users based on their role or roles, and determines which functions can be accessed based on individual security and access rights, the development phase that a project is currently in, etc. For example, if a particular project is in the design phase, the posting subsystem 708 can determine that the external entity sponsoring the project has read/write access to the specification, and can re-post an updated specification if necessary. The facilitator 400 may have read access to the specification, as well as access to other specifications attributed to other external entities they may support. In some embodiments, the entire distributed community of programmers may be able to view all of the currently pending specifications, however the posting subsystem may limit full read access to only those developers meeting one or more skill or rating criteria, as described above. Once designs are submitted, access to the submitted designs can be further limited to only review board members, or in some cases other participants in the process.

The development posting subsystem 708 also enables the server 104 or other participants to communicate with potential developers to promote development projects and grow the community of programmers that participate in the development process. In one embodiment, the development posting subsystem 708 displays an advertisement to potential developers. In one embodiment, the advertisement describes the project using text, graphics, video, and/or sounds. Examples of communication techniques include, without limitation, posting these ads on the server's web site, displaying statistics about the project (e.g., planned royalties paid to developers, developers who are participating in this project, development hours available per week). Moreover, in one embodiment the development posting subsystem 708 accepts inquiries associated with development projects. In further embodiments, the development posting subsystem 708 suggests development opportunities to particular developers. The development posting subsystem 708 may analyze, for example, the rating of each member of the distributed community, previous contributions to previous development projects, the quality of contributions to previous component development projects (e.g., based on a score given to each developer's submission(s) as discussed above), and current availability of the developer to participate.

The server 104 also includes a management subsystem 712. The management subsystem 712 is a module that tracks the progress of design and development projects using the software development environment 204. The management subsystem 712 also facilitates the enrollment of new users of the system, and assigns the appropriate security and access rights to the users depending on the roles they have on the various projects. In some versions, the management subsystem 712 can also compile and track operational statistics of the software development environment 204 and users of the system. For example, to determine the appropriate compensation to be awarded to a developer submitting a wining design, the management subsystem 712 may review previously completed projects and assign a similar cash award. Similarly, in cases where the difficulty level of a posted design or program is very high, the management subsystem 712 can review information about individual programmers to determine those developers who have historically performed well on like projects. In addition, the management subsystem 712 may be used to analyze overall throughput times necessary to develop operational programs from a specification provided by an external entity. This can assist users of the system in setting the appropriate deliverable dates and costs associated with new projects.

The server 104 also includes a review board subsystem 714. The review board subsystem 714 allows review board members, external entities, the facilitator, and in some cases developers in the distributed community to review submissions from other developers, as described above. In one embodiment, the communication server 704, the development posting subsystem 708, the management subsystem 712, the review board subsystem 714, the testing subsystem, the scoring subsystem, and the methodology database reside on the server 104. Alternatively, these components of the software development environment 204 can reside on other servers or remote devices.

The server 104 additionally includes a testing subsystem 716. The testing subsystem 716 enables the testing of the submitted programs, applications and/or components. In one embodiment, the testing server 708 is used by the review boards, the facilitator 400, and/or the external entity 208 to review, evaluate, screen and test submitted designs and software programs. The testing subsystem 716 can also execute test cases developed and submitted by the developer 404 against some or all of the submitted programs, as described above. Moreover, the testing subsystem 716 may execute an automated test on the component or application, such as to verify and/or measure memory usage, thread usage, machine statistics such as I/O usage and processor load. Additionally, the testing subsystem 716 can score the component by performance, design, and/or functionality. The testing subsystem 716 can be a test harness for testing multiple programs simultaneously.

The server 104 also includes a scoring subsystem 720. In one embodiment, the scoring subsystem 720 calculates scores for the submissions based on the results from the testing subsystem 716, and in some embodiments ratings for each participant in one or more coding competitions, previous development submissions, or both. In other embodiments, the scoring subsystem 720 can calculate ratings for developers based on their contributions to the project.

The server 104 also includes a methodology database 724. The methodology database 724 stores data relating to the structured development methodology 220. In one embodiment, the methodology 220 may stipulate specific inputs and outputs that are necessary to transition from one phase of the development project to the next. For example, the methodology 200 may dictate that, in order to complete the specification phase of the project and being the design phase, a checklist of items must be completed. Furthermore, the methodology database 724 may store sample documents, designs, and code examples that can be used as templates for future projects, and thus impose a standardized, repeatable and predictable process framework on new projects. This standardization reduces the risks associated with embarking on new software development projects, shortens the overall duration of new development projects, and increases the quality and reliability of the end products.

The server 104 also includes distribution subsystem 728. The distribution subsystem 728 can track and store data relating to software products (e.g., specifications, designs, developed programs) that have been produced using the domain 204. In one embodiment, the distribution subsystem 728 includes descriptive information about the entity 208 that requested the product, the entry and exit points of the domain 204, significant dates such as the request date and the delivery date, and the names and/or nicknames of the developers that participated in the development of the product. The distribution subsystem 728 can also include detailed functional information about the product such as technology used to develop the product, supported computing environments, as well as others. In some embodiments, previously distributed software products may be updated or patched, as described above. In such cases, the distribution subsystem 728 facilitates the identification of the entity or entities 208 that may have older versions of the product, and subsequent communication and distribution of updated versions, where applicable. In some cases, the distribution subsystem 728 can also function as a source code management system, thereby allowing various versions of previously developed software products to branch into distinct software products having a common provenance.

Referring to FIG. 8, in one embodiment a first company 808 and a second company 810 purchase, license, or sponsor the development of a version 1 of a software program, component, or application. After receiving the program, the second company 810 modifies the program 816, shown with modification arrow 828. A modification is, for example, an improvement (e.g., efficiency increase, smaller memory requirements), deletion (e.g., of an unneeded step or feature), and/or an addition (e.g., of a complimentary feature or function) to the program 816. Another example of a modification is the integration of the program 816 into another program, component, or application. In response to the modification, version 1 of the component 816 becomes, for example, version 1.1 of the program 816′. In one embodiment, the remote update tracking module 812 transmits a message to the server 104 stating that the second company 808 has modified the component 816. In further embodiments, the remote update tracking module 812 then transmits (or, e.g., queries and transmits) the modified version 1.1 to the server 104, as shown with arrow 832. Upon receipt of version 1.1 of the program 816′, the server 104 and/or development team members determine whether the modified component 816′ can be added to the component storage module 804 by, for example, performing the steps illustrated in FIGS. 4 a and 4 b. In one embodiment, when version 1.1 of the program 816′ is added to the component storage module 804, version 1.1 replaces version 1 of the program 816. Alternatively, version 1.1 of the component 816′ is added as another component in the component storage module 804. The replacement or addition of version 1.1 of the program 816′ may depend on the amount of changes relative to version 1 of the component. Furthermore, the update tracking module 812 may notify each customer who previously purchased version 1 of the program 816 (i.e., the first company 808) that an updated version 1.1 has been added to the component storage module 804. Additionally, in some embodiments the second company 810 is compensated for licenses/sales of copies of the second version of the program 816′. For example, compensation for creating a new program can take the form of monetary compensation, prizes, credits towards future software purchases, and/or rating points.

The programmers can be paid a fee for their work on the software program. In one embodiment, programmers receive a royalty based on their contribution to the software program and the revenue earned from licenses or sales of copies of the program. The server 104 tracks particular characteristics for determining the royalty amounts to be paid to the programmers. In one such embodiment, the fee is an advance payment on royalties, meaning that royalties are not paid until the advance is covered.

In one embodiment, the server 104 tracks a total revenue, a programmer contribution, a programmer royalty percentage, a royalty pool percentage, a royalty pool, and a royalty for each software program and/or for each program. The contribution is, for example, a predetermined amount based on the fault being fixed. In another embodiment, the contribution of a programmer is determined by the amount of time, level of skill (determined by previous scores, contest rating, experience or a combination), or degree of effort made by the programmer to fix the faulty software. In another embodiment, the contribution is determined by the usefulness of the programmers contribution. The expected proportional contribution of programmer to the overall royalties for a particular software program can be a fixed amount (e.g., 5% of the total royalties) or a scaled amount based, for example, on the severity of the fault that was fixed. In some cases, the entire royalty may be reallocated from the original developer of the software program to the programmer that fixed a fault in the program. In the event that the program is changed, upgraded or otherwise modified, an adjustment may be made to the development team member's royalty percentage for that modified version, to reflect the new contribution division.

Although described above as independent subsystems and modules, this is for exemplary purposes only and these subsystems and modules may alternatively be combined into one or more modules or subsystems. Moreover, one or more of the subsystems described above may be remotely located from other modules (e.g., executing on another server 104 in a server farm).

Although described here with reference to software, and useful when implemented with regard to software components, the cooperatively developed product can be any sort of tangible or intangible object that embodies intellectual property. As non-limiting examples, the techniques could be used for computer hardware and electronics designs, or other designs such as architecture, construction, or landscape design. Other non-limiting examples for which the techniques could be used include the development of all kinds of written documents and content such as documentation and articles for papers or periodicals (whether on-line or on paper), research papers, scripts, multimedia content, legal documents, and more. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method for providing an updated version of a previously-released software program comprising: receiving an indication of a fault in a software program previously released into a production environment of an external entity from an end-user of the faulty software program, the indication comprising a description of the fault; confirming, by a facilitator, that the previously-released software program exhibits the described fault; distributing the faulty previously-released software program and the description of the fault received from an end-user of the faulty software program to members of a distributed community of programmers for resolution of the described fault; specifying a reward for resolving the described fault; receiving a plurality of updated versions of the faulty previously-released software program from a subset of the members of the distributed community of programmers in response to the distribution of the previously-released software program, each updated version intended to resolve the described fault; receiving one or more test cases that cause the software program to fail from each programmer submitting an updated version of the previously-released software program, the one or more test cases having been developed by the respective programmer; aggregating the received test cases into a test case pool; applying a subset of the test case pool against one or more of the received updated versions such that test cases developed by different submitting programmers are used to test each of the one or more received updated versions, the different submitting programmers including the programmer that submitted the updated version under test; testing, by at least one reviewer, at least one of the received updated versions to ensure that the described fault is resolved by the at least one received updated version; selecting a preferred updated software program from the received updated versions of the faulty previously-released software program; providing the reward to the programmer that submitted the preferred updated software program; and distributing the preferred updated software program to the external entity.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the software program had previously been developed during a coding competition.
 3. The method of claim 1 wherein the software program is one or more selected from the group of a software component, a software application, a combination of software components, or a software module.
 4. The method of claim 1 further comprising receiving a copy of the faulty software program.
 5. The method of claim 1 further comprising analyzing the faulty program to determine the cause of the fault.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein the indication of a fault in a software program is received from a member of the distributed community of programmers.
 7. The method of claim 1 further comprising receiving a severity level associated with the indication of fault.
 8. The method of claim 1 further comprising distributing a software specification that was used to design the faulty software program.
 9. The method of claim 1 further comprising distributing a design document that was used to develop the faulty software program.
 10. The method of claim 1 wherein the distributed community of programmers includes one or more contestants from an online programming competition.
 11. The method of claim 10 further comprising limiting the distribution of the indication of the faulty software program to members of the distributed community of programmers having achieved a minimum rating in the online programming competition.
 12. The method of claim 1 wherein the distributed community of programmers includes a programmer that previously developed the faulty software program.
 13. The method of claim 1 wherein a time limit for submitting updated versions of the software program is imposed on community of programmers.
 14. The method of claim 1 wherein the determination of a preferred updated software program is based at least in part on the extent to which the preferred updated software program addresses the indicated fault.
 15. The method of claim 1 wherein the determination of a preferred updated software program is based at least in part on the order of receiving the updated versions of the software program.
 16. The method of claim 1 further comprising determining a list of parties who are using the faulty software program.
 17. The method of claim 16 further comprising distributing the preferred updated software program to the determined list of parties who are using the faulty software program.
 18. The method of claim 1 further comprising compensating a programmer that submitted the preferred updated software program.
 19. The method of claim 18 wherein the compensation is monetary.
 20. The method of claim 18 wherein the compensation is an increased rating.
 21. The method of claim 1 further comprising rejecting submissions of updated versions of the faulty software program after a set period of time.
 22. The method of claim 1 further comprising rejecting submissions of updated versions of the faulty software program after receiving a predetermined number of submissions of updated versions of the software program in which the indicated faults are repaired.
 23. A computer-based system for providing updated versions of previously-released software programs comprising: at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processing unit for executing the instructions stored in the memory, wherein execution of the instructions results in one or more applications together comprising: a communications server module for receiving, from one or more end-users of a software program previously released into a production environment of an external entity, an indication of a fault in the software program, the indication comprising a description of the fault; a verification module for facilitating confirmation, by a facilitator, that the faulty previously-received software program exhibits the described fault; a development posting module for: distributing the faulty previously-released software program and the description of the fault to members of a distributed community of programmers for resolution of the described fault, specifying a reward for resolving the described fault, and receiving a plurality of updated versions of the faulty previously-released software program from a subset of the members of the distributed community of programmers, each updated version intended to resolve the described fault; a review subsystem module for: receiving one or more test cases that cause the software program to fail from each programmer submitting an updated version of the previously-released software program, the one or more test cases having been developed by the respective programmer; aggregating the received test cases into a test case pool; applying a subset of the test case pool against one or more of the received updated versions such that test cases developed by different submitting programmers are used to test each of the one or more received updated versions, the different submitting programmers including the programmer that submitted the updated version under test; and testing at least one of the received updated versions to ensure that the described fault is resolved by the at least one received updated version and selecting a preferred updated version from the received updated versions of the faulty previously-released software program; a reward module for providing the reward to the programmer that submitted the preferred updated version; and a distribution module for distributing the preferred updated version to the external entity.
 24. The system of claim 23 further comprising a rating engine for rating the skills of the distributed community of software programmers in response to the received updated versions of the faulty software program.
 25. The system of claim 23 further comprising a reviewing module to allow members of the distributed community to review updated versions of the faulty software program submitted by other members of the distributed community.
 26. The system of claim 23 further comprising a version control module for maintaining multiple versions of the faulty software program.
 27. The system of claim 26 wherein one of the maintained versions is the preferred updated version of the faulty software program.
 28. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of reviewing by members of the distributed community updated versions of the faulty software program submitted by other members of the community.
 29. The system of claim 23 wherein the communications server module distributes the preferred updated version of the faulty software program to one or more of the end-users.
 30. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing an online development and testing environment to members of the distributed community of programmers for use in analyzing and modifying the faulty program.
 31. The system of claim 23 further comprising an online development and testing environment for members of the distributed community of programmers to use in analyzing and modifying the previously-released program. 